The male decedent was a 29-year-old truck driver when the
gasoline tanker he was driving crashed into a Jacksonville exit
ramp resulting in his death. The plaintiff claimed that the
accident stemmed from the defendant Florida Department of
Transportations ("FDOT") failure to maintain the storm drains in
the area. The plaintiff alleged that as a result, the road
flooded causing a vehicle in front of the decedents tanker truck
to hit the standing water. The plaintiff claimed that the
decedent was forced to veer to the right and crash the truck into
on off-ramp to avoid injuring others at the scene. The driver of
the passenger vehicle was not a defendant at the time of trial.
The defendant DOT maintained that the decedent truck driver
caused the collision by traveling at an excessive speed,
following too closely and losing control of the truck. The
defense also denied notice that the storm drain was clogged in
the area of the accident.

The decedent was driving a loaded gasoline tanker truck on August
12, ________, near the Hart Bridge leaving downtown Jacksonville.
Evidence showed it was raining heavily just before the accident.
The plaintiff contended that a passenger vehicle driven by Jason
Keiffer was traveling in front of the tanker truck. The plaintiff
contended that the Keiffer vehicle hit standing water on the
flooded road surface, forcing the tanker truck to take evasive
action.

Keiffer testified that he was unaware that the tanker truck was
traveling behind him. He testified that he saw standing water on
the road at the last minute and started pumping his brakes.
Keiffer testified he came out of the water and moved into the
right lane when he saw the truck moving up along his right side.

The plaintiff claimed that the flooded road surface stemmed from
the defendant FDOTs lack of adequate maintenance of the storm
drains in this area of the highway. The plaintiff contended that
the decedent was unable to use the right emergency lane due to a
prior accident which blocked that lane. The plaintiff contended
that to avoid striking the vehicles stopped in the emergency
lane, the decedent swerved towards the exit ramp to Atlantic
Boulevard. The gasoline tanker was unable to make the sharp turn
and it collided with the guardrail. The tanker truck rolled over
and exploded into a 50-foot fireball that resulted in the
decedents death at the scene.

The plaintiffs accident reconstruction expert placed the trucks
speed at approximately 54 mph in a 45 mph zone. This expert
testified that the truck was traveling approximately ________ feet
behind the Keiffer vehicle, which was an acceptable following
distance.

The decedent was survived by his wife who was eight months
pregnant at the time as well as a two-year-old daughter. The
plaintiff called two psychologists who testified that the 3\ 3 decedents wife has undergone approximately a year of counseling.
The plaintiff also argued that the decedents children will have
psychological difficulties and issues stemming from their
fathers death for many years into the future. The plaintiffs
economist estimated the plaintiffs economic damages as $2
million to $2.5 million.

The defendants accident reconstruction experts testified that
the tanker truck was exceeding the speed limit and following too
closely behind the Keiffer vehicle. The defendants expert placed
the trucks speed at approximately 60 mph in a 45 mph zone as it
was coming down the hill off the bridge. Evidence showed that the
truck was fully loaded with gasoline and weighted approximately
________ pounds.

The defendant stressed that the decedents wife was planning to
be married to another man in October, ________ and had given birth to
this mans baby. The defense argued that she was moving on with
her life. The defendants economist estimated the plaintiffs
economic damages as approximately $1 million.

After a seven-day trial, the jury found the defendant Florida
Department of Transportation 36% negligent and the decedent 64%
comparatively negligent. The plaintiff was awarded $3.6 million
in damages which was reduced accordingly. The plaintiff has filed
an appeal challenging the comparative negligence finding.